brakeless posted:

Well if we go by your logic here then "supporting the regime" could have taken the form of emptying trashbins in Berlin during the war. If there's nobody doing that job, then it's one less body for the genocide machine right? Everyone who didn't outright flee from Germany is morally culpable if they enabled even the tiniest function of the state. The connection between someone commiting a war crime and someone who happens to be elsewhere in the army at the same time is about as nebulous. If you can't see how dumb assigning blame on that basis is, especially in the context of telling someone that they aren't allowed to care what happens in Iraq because they were part of the US army at the time, I'll have a pretty good laugh.

SoggyBobcat posted:

Just how far back does this guilt by association go?

Is it just the local units involved, or the entire U.S. Army? How about the other military organizations like the Navy and Air Force? The U.S. government that controls those military organizations? How about the U.S. citizens the government represents (lets not get sidetracked on this point; the government represents you whether it is ideologically similar to your views or not)?

If a squad of Marines executes a small group of unarmed civilians, how culpable is that Army fry cook who wasn't even in the same theatre of operations?

Sucrose posted:

Was it all Cold War era bullshit like everything else? If so, why hasn't the US dropped them after it ended?

botany posted:

How does emptying the bins help the genocide machine?

I'm not saying that if you're in the army and some rogue squad goes off and rapes and kills a 14 year old girl, then murders her family, you're just as guilty as they are. That would obviously be nonsense. What if you're there but don't participate in the rape and killings? What if you know what's about to happen but simply fail to report the deed? Taking this back to Fallujah (or My Lai), the people participating in those events are obviously morally culpable. So what if you're part of the sieging force but fail to fire your gun? What if you know what's going on but don't protest? Those are not the same things, but I find it hard to accept that unless you physically commit a war crime, you're guilt-free. The people making sure that the ammo gets where it needs to be, the people who made the plan in the first place, etc., all carry some level of blame, however minute.

These are not questions that I can easily answer. Guilt / moral culpability doesn't come with a handy numerical score. It seems obvious to me that if you support war crimes, either directly or indirectly, that's probably not a good thing. The less you had to do with it, the less blame falls on you. Maybe my fry-cook example was poorly chosen, I wanted something drastic to get the point across that if you say you helped the army do good work (by doing something small and unrelated), that works for the bad stuff as well.

Lastly, I know that soldiers will be penalized if they protest an action they think is immoral, and that's an explanation for why they may choose not to do it, but it's not an excuse. Besides, solders have the explicit duty to disobey orders they think are illegal, such as war crimes.

edit: Mods, if this starting to become too off-topic, give the word.

botany posted:

It's perfectly fine to blame a gang banger for, you know, being a gang banger. If they have change of heart afterwards, great, but that doesn't excuse the poo poo they did in the first place. I don't think it's unreasonable to assume that the poster in question is genuinely concerned over the plight of the Iraqis, but they still deployed as part of a force that literally carried out war crimes against the population. Even if Bait and Swatch wasn't part of any of the excesses, he/she was still part of the human infrastructure that enabled the siege of Fallujah etc. Being roughly reminded of that once in a while isn't really unreasonable.

botany posted:

Maybe my fry-cook example was poorly chosen, I wanted something drastic to get the point across that if you say you helped the army do good work (by doing something small and unrelated), that works for the bad stuff as well.

visceril posted:

Jon Steinbeck wrote a moving passage in the Grapes of Wrath about a man being foreclosed upon by a local bank, where the bank was like this great lumbering beast with a mind of its own, and all of the bankers, tellers, loan officers, and clerks were helpless to stop it. All of those people refused to help their neighbor simply because that imaginary beast forced them not to.

It presents a strong moral indictment on the participants of a social system for just going with the flow instead of acting in a morally conscious way.

Social systems, be they corporations or militaries, are amoral--they have no morals and morals do not guide their actions in the slightest. They functio for completely different purposes and will use any means, moral or immoral, to achieve them. For corporations, this means loving people and destroying the planet to produce financial results for shareholders. For the military, this means committing war crimes to win the war.

It is the people in those systems that have morals, and have the power to make moral choices. You could choose to 'just follow orders' or you could choose to put morality ahead of objectives

MothraAttack posted:

Anyone following this fighting between Islamists and ISIS?

Phlegmish posted:

I'm a little confused, I thought ISIS was Islamist.

SoggyBobcat posted:

Calling all American soldiers war criminals or just as guilty as war criminals because they're a member of the same institution is just as dishonest as calling all Muslims jihadists or just as guilty as one since they're a member of the same religion.

SedanChair posted:

That's a pretty incredible conflation, with a big difference in agency.

botany posted:

It's perfectly fine to blame a gang banger for, you know, being a gang banger. If they have change of heart afterwards, great, but that doesn't excuse the poo poo they did in the first place. I don't think it's unreasonable to assume that the poster in question is genuinely concerned over the plight of the Iraqis, but they still deployed as part of a force that literally carried out war crimes against the population. Even if Bait and Swatch wasn't part of any of the excesses, he/she was still part of the human infrastructure that enabled the siege of Fallujah etc. Being roughly reminded of that once in a while isn't really unreasonable.

SoggyBobcat posted:

Is it really? What's the difference with a young American male who signs up with the military to help pay for his education and a young Pashtun male that signs up with the Taliban because there's literally nothing else for him to do in his village except join the local militia?

quote:

Iraqi security forces lose control of Fallujah

BAGHDAD, Jan. 4 (Xinhua) -- Iraqi security forces on Saturday lost control of Fallujah, a city in Anbar province some 50 km west of Baghdad, to some tribesmen and al-Qaida fighters, a security source said.

"Fallujah is under control of armed tribesmen and al-Qaida fighters, and there is no presence for the government security forces," the source told Xinhua.

The clashes in Anbar province entered their sixth day after tensions flared up in the western province on Monday when Iraqi police dismantled an anti-government protest site outside it capital city of Ramadi.

Meanwhile, a witness from the city told Xinhua by telephone that fierce clashes erupted on Friday night, when dozens of gunmen attacked an army base outside Fallujah, and seized part of it.

Unlike in Fallujah, tribesmen and government troops fought together against al-Qaida militants in Ramadi, some 110 km west of Baghdad, and regained control of the city, the security source said.

Tension has been running high in the Sunni heartland of Anbar since the Iraqi security forces on Saturday captured Sunni Arab tribal leader and lawmaker Ahmad al-Alwani and killed his brother.

The Sunnis have been carrying out year-long protests, accusing the Shiite-led government of marginalizing them and its Shiite- dominated security forces of indiscriminately arresting, torturing and killing their sons.

Alwani is one of the outspoken leaders in the anti-government protests. Some opponent lawmakers have been calling for lifting his immunity against arrest, but their demand was rejected by the parliament.

suboptimal posted:

I'm seeing unconfirmed stuff on Twitter that the Savior of Um al-Dunya General Abdel Fattah al-Sisi will run for Egypt's presidency. No word as to whether or not the ghosts of Gamal Abdel-Nasser or Anwar Sadat whispered gently into his ear one night and urged him to do so.

Tatum Girlparts posted:

I agree it's the bank tellers to blame for a house being foreclosed on, that's how systems work.

edit: Christ by this logic that summer I folded poo poo at Old Navy means I am to blame for their sweat shop policy.

Also to tie into this thread, every member of the FSA is to be considered an islamist terrorist because there are factions within it that are. After all if these people were truly moral they'd do...something...gently caress that I don't need to say what they need to do I'm a person on the internet, I never have to acknowledge this situation as real because I'll never be in it.

visceril posted:

The point isn't to shame the tellers and clerks and dump blood on them PETA style, but by participating in the system, yes they do bear some moral responsibility for it.

Like how a white person should acknowledge and understand that they benefit from institutional racism, but not become self-flagellating strawmen.

visceril posted:

The point isn't to shame the tellers and clerks and dump blood on them PETA style, but by participating in the system, yes they do bear some moral responsibility for it.

Like how a white person should acknowledge and understand that they benefit from institutional racism, but not become self-flagellating strawmen.

redscare posted:

Saw 59 new posts and thought there was a thorough discussion of all the crazy recent developments in the region.

Nope, just another stupid slapfight over American soldiers.

visceril posted:

So, Assad is sitting tight and waiting to pick off whoever wins over the rebel infighting, because there's no way they're sticking together after ISIS is gone, and by that point people will welcome an end to the bloodshed and Assad will be remembered as a Protector of Syria. Good job guys! You sure did kill a shitload of people, destroy any potential for a new market, and fail to tip the Sunni/Shia balance of power in any meaningful way. High Fives all around!

Charliegrs posted:

They have done everything they can to sideline Sunnis and now they expect to pacify a highly Sunni area using what amounts to a huge Shia militia (the Iraqi army)

visceril posted:

So, Assad is sitting tight and waiting to pick off whoever wins over the rebel infighting, because there's no way they're sticking together after ISIS is gone, and by that point people will welcome an end to the bloodshed and Assad will be remembered as a Protector of Syria. Good job guys! You sure did kill a shitload of people, destroy any potential for a new market, and fail to tip the Sunni/Shia balance of power in any meaningful way. High Fives all around!

Muffiner posted:

Phlegmish posted:

Thanks for the summary. I love how the goalposts have shifted so much that you have now have 'moderate' Al Qaeda-affiliated groups.

Brown Moses posted:

Remember this from a couple of days ago?


Well it's just been reported he's died "from a deterioration of a health condition." I guess that handily avoids him answering some awkward questions.

Pieter posted:

Is the Iraqi army truly a huge Shia militia? If so, was it a huge Sunni militia before the disbanding? I can't really find information on its ethno-religious divisions (I wonder the same about the police force).

AllanGordon posted:

Any word on what party he would run with?

Muffiner posted:

No problem. Also, the drums of despair continue to beat, as they have since this all started. Somehow the rebels finally unifying against crazy radicals who nobody ever wanted is now a bad thing.

Pimpmust posted:

On the news front, how about this bizarreness?

Former Right-wing populist anti-immigration politician/media mogul/entrepreneur turns Syrian Refugee hostel-profiteer.

"In the space of a year, Mr Karlsson has opened four hostels accommodating about 1,000 refugees drawn by Sweden’s generous asylum conditions. He has applied to open 19 more, housing up to 7,000 people, which would make him by far the biggest provider of refugee accommodation in the country."

Aurubin posted:

The hope was that the FSA would win and set up the bizarro-Assad regime. Secular, good at keeping a lid on sectarian tensions (regardless of cost) and pro US. Maybe democracy or something I dunno. Now at best the US and Israel get a Sunni majority Islamic state a la Saudi Arabia but without the oil or duplicity. "Death to Israel" but we mean it this time.

New Division posted:

Saudi Arabia and Israel are actually drifting into an alliance of sorts. It's a strange friendship though, since neither government can too openly acknowledge it and it only exists due to a shared hatred of Iran.

Amused to Death posted:

Didn't the same thing happen with Israel and Syria at some point during the Lebanon civil war? Or at least supporting the same militias.(I think specifically at one point they were both supporting the Maronites, but that's just more of a gut feeling) Politics is weird.